Huff v. State ( 1918 )

Broyles, P. J.

1. It does not appear that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance based upon the absence of certain witnesses who did 'not reside in the county where the case was pending.

2.' The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed..

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concu/r. W. A. Dampier, for plaintiff in error. W. A. Wooten, solicitor-general, contra.